State v. Young

• Decision Date: 31 January 1877
• Citation: 76 N.C. 258
• Parties: STATE v. BOB YOUNG.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

76 N.C. 258

STATE

v.BOB YOUNG.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1877.

INDICTMENT for cheating by False Tokens and Pretences, (Bat. Rev. ch. 32 § 67.) tried at Fall Term, 1876, of MECKLENBURG Superior Court, before Schenck, J.

The facts are that one Susan Galloway the prosecutrix leased a tract of land to defendant for one year. Defendant agreed to pay as rent four bales of “good middling” cotton. On the first of January, 1876, he sent two bales to prosecutrix and about a month thereafter in a settlement between the parties the prosecutrix took the defendant's note for $100 in lieu of the other two bales. The prosecutrix afterwards sold the cotton for $70. The defendant falsely represented the two bales as “good middling” cotton for the purpose of deceiving the prosecutrix and to obtain a credit on his contract, which credit he did obtain.

The jury rendered a verdict of guilty and the defendant moved in arrest of judgment; that “credit on an account” is not embraced by the statute as a thing to be obtained by false pretences.

The Court being of opinion with defendant allowed the motion and Montgomery, Solicitor for the State, appealed.

Attorney General, for the State .

Messrs. W. W. Flemming and A. Burwell, for the defendant .

FAIRCLOTH, J.

In the cotton markets the terms “Middling, Good Middling, Ordinary, Good ordinary” and some others are well understood by buyers and sellers in the cotton regions. They signify distinct grades of cotton and sell at prices differing very materially. It is a common business to buy and sell cotton without inspection on the basis of these terms and when delivered, if the grade is higher or lower the price is varied accordingly. Reference to these terms here is not important except to show that the draftsman did not advert particularly to the use of these terms, as the bill of indictment charges that the defe?? ??ulently represented the bales of cotton to be “good middling” and finally that he obtained a credit on his account at the price of “good cotton”

The defendant had agreed to pay the prosecutrix, as rent, four bales of “good middling” cotton for the year 1875, and the bill alleges that on the delivery of two bales he falsely represented them as such; whereas in fact they were of an inferior grade and these facts are ascertained by the special verdict. It also charges that he falsely and fraudulently packed said bales by having good cotton on the outside and inferior cotton in the...